The social crisis of water in Aconcagua, Chile: privatized rights management and collaborative usage strategies in a context of mega-drought
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the emergence of collaborative water governance in response to Chile’s ongoing mega-drought, focusing on how affected actors are reshaping power dynamics to address growing water conflicts. The Aconcagua River is a paradigmatic case for at least two main reasons. First, earlier water disputes in the region provided valuable lessons that have since been incorporated into institutional practices at multiple levels. Using frameworks derived from political ecology, extractivism studies, and the commons paradigm, we investigate conflicts between actors involved in water management and the search for collaborative solutions. We applied cartographic participative methodologies, conducted 19 in-depth interviews with key actors, and engaged in participant observation in five regional water meetings between May 2023 and June 2024. The Aconcagua case illustrates how water scarcity has become a catalyst for collaborative water governance. It showcases a shift from hierarchical and exclusionary structures, where only water rights holders had decision-making power, toward more inclusive arrangements. Municipal governments, regional authorities, water cooperatives, and civil society organizations are increasingly working together to manage water resources in ways that reflect broader social and ecological values. We argue that this reorganization of power relations is driven by both institutional reform and social mobilization, as diverse actors leverage legal and political tools to promote equity and sustainability. The experience of Aconcagua offers important insights into how collaborative governance can emerge in contexts shaped by entrenched inequalities, environmental stress, and evolving legal frameworks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".